Once you factor out a drivers debut and retirement seasons then it is pretty accurate the vast majority of the time.

I beg to differ, for reasons stated in my previous post. Drivers aren't static in performance throughout their careers.And you do realize that by your statement, Hamilton would be much better than Alonso? Since he matched him (technically beat him) in his debut season? No matter what an exceptional talent Hamilton was, he probably wasn't at his best yet in his first season. Regardless of talent, there's still a learning curve.

A probably really unpopular opinion: Rosberg was faster than Hamilton. He just had other deficits because of which he couldn't really compete with Hamilton, mainly psychological. I think this because in 2015, when the WDC was decided and the pressure was off, Rosberg was completely untouchable. But when the pressure was on, Rosberg always faltered.

A probably really unpopular opinion: Rosberg was faster than Hamilton. He just had other deficits because of which he couldn't really compete with Hamilton, mainly psychological. I think this because in 2015, when the WDC was decided and the pressure was off, Rosberg was completely untouchable. But when the pressure was on, Rosberg always faltered.

Or maybe, when the deed was done, Hamilton stopped trying?

Rosberg was fast, but I don't think he was faster than Hamilton - But this is the unpopular opinions thread!

Because if he was, it would throw the whole driver status dynamic out of whack.

Comparing drivers with long-term teammates is the most reliable way we have of seeing where two drivers stand.

For example, Alonso used to be less than a tenth behind Hamilton in qualifying, in 2007.Hamilton to Button, the gap used to be 2 to 3 tenths in qualifying, over 3 years. This would tell us it would be similar to that if Alonso was Button's teammate.

And from 2015 to 2016, that is indeed the gap Alonso had to Button.

Alonso dominated Massa speedwise from 2010 to 2013, so it was obvious the same would happen to Raikkonen. People hyped the partnership, but 2014 made it clear that Alonso dominated Raikkonen the same way he dominated Massa. Maybe even a little more, which is accurate, since Massa used to be a little quicker than Raikkonen in qualifying.

So, if we use this basis, and assume 2014 to be an accurate reflection of Ricciardo vs Vettel, then:

Ricciardo is even better than Alonso, because Alonso dominated Raikkonen in qualifying, while Vettel also has good speed over Raikkonen. So Alonso is only a little better than Vettel, speedwise.

Alonso's gap to Massa is similar to how Schumacher dominated Massa. Hence, Alonso and Schumacher are similar speedwise, with Ricciardo still a healthy chunk faster than both!

I could still have maybe digested it till this point, Ricciardo could well have been the fastest driver ever, it's not preposterous. He certainly did have excellent racecraft, speed, and consistency.(Although one sign that was an anomaly in the domination was rain. Whenever it rained, even in 2014, Vettel easily outpaced Ricciardo in qualifying and seemed faster. Verstappen seems faster than Ricciardo in the rain too.)

But then Verstappen comes along. And he has even greater racecraft, though granted he makes mistakes which I think will iron out with age, and he seems to be even faster than Ricciardo now, in every qualifying. That would make it ludicrious, that Verstappen is ages, ages better than Schumacher and Alonso in raw speed.

And I don't believe we such jumps of talent in F1, ever. The odds of Ricciardo and Verstappen BOTH being the fastest drivers ever by some margin, and ending up in the same era and same team, are really, really improbable.

So, I believe that because of issues in his motivation, not liking the cars, not working well with the tyres which used to be his specialty, and ultimately teammate pressure, Vettel underperformed in 2014.

But of course Ricciardo was better in 2014.

If I had to say what would happen between them when both are in good form, with a gun to my head? Vettel will beat Ricciardo by a smidgen in qualifying. The race would be very close, as Vettel might manage his tyres slightly better, while Ricciardo has the better racecraft. But they'll overall be very evenly matched, not domination like 2014.

It's like Raikkonen and Massa, 2007 and 2008, actually. Raikkonen was just slightly better in 2007. Due to low motivation, then some bad luck in races, losing the points lead, and car not suiting him, he fell a long way behind Massa. If we had only used 2008 as a comparison for Raikkonen and Massa, we'd not get an accurate picture. I believe similar things happened in 2014 between Vettel and Ricciardo. They would be, IMO, very, very similar, with differing strengths.

Phew.

You clearly put a lot of thought into that, but I don't think it works that way. The A beat B and B beat C so A is better than C logic is flawed, because it assumes that drivers are performing at the same level all the time. There are many differences between years however, be it different teams, different in-team dynamics, different cars and regulations, drivers age and gain more experience . . . the list goes on.I do agree Vettel just had a bad year in 2014, for the various reasons you stated.

Comparing A vs B vs C when they've been teammates for long periods of time, or in stable conditions, has demonstrably worked. It's certainly worked better than any other system anyone else can think of.

Once you factor out a drivers debut and retirement seasons then it is pretty accurate the vast majority of the time.

Indeed, also it amazes me how some people can determine who the best driver is but dismiss driver match ups when the drivers are in the same team.

A probably really unpopular opinion: Rosberg was faster than Hamilton. He just had other deficits because of which he couldn't really compete with Hamilton, mainly psychological. I think this because in 2015, when the WDC was decided and the pressure was off, Rosberg was completely untouchable. But when the pressure was on, Rosberg always faltered.

Or maybe, when the deed was done, Hamilton stopped trying?

Rosberg was fast, but I don't think he was faster than Hamilton - But this is the unpopular opinions thread!

Yeah I think the party started early for Hamilton, also Hamilton was actually still faster than Rosberg in most of the races he just couldn't get close enough to pass.

Yeah I think the party started early for Hamilton, also Hamilton was actually still faster than Rosberg in most of the races he just couldn't get close enough to pass.

That's not quite true...

After the Japanese Grand Prix - which Lewis won by a dominant margin - the only race you could make a good case for him being the faster driver but unable to pass was Mexico. In Russia Nico qualified on pole and was cruising to victory when his car failed. In the United States Nico was comfortably ahead before his 'gust of wind' - it was completely his fault, but it wasn't that Lewis was right behind and trying to overtake before it, either. And in Brazil and Abu Dhabi Nico was comfortably on pole and never really challenged in the race; Lewis finished about 8 seconds behind in both, which doesn't fit with being faster but not close enough to pass.

Hamilton was never able to properly dominate Rosberg in qualifying when they were teammates. Overall Rosberg took 29 pole positions to Hamilton's 35. Which is not exactly convincing. I believe that the average gap across 4 seasons and 78 races was 0.091s in Hamilton's favor.

Hamilton was never able to properly dominate Rosberg in qualifying when they were teammates. Overall Rosberg took 29 pole positions to Hamilton's 35. Which is not exactly convincing. I believe that the average gap across 4 seasons and 78 races was 0.091s in Hamilton's favor.

I know people have differing ways of calculating the avg gap, some leave out wet sessions for example, but that figure is a helluva lot different to the last one I saw which was closer to 2.5ths in favour of Lewis across the 4 seasons.

Now I just need to remember where I saw it...

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Rosberg needed to copy Hamiltons setup, and study his telemetry to pull that off. Also he needed to be guided by the team where he could drive differently to be quicker. Figuring out how to drive faster is his job not the teams. Anywho, not taking away anything from him, he is quick over one lap. Just not as naturally quick and talented as Hamilton. He put up a good fight.

_________________Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

No it wasn't. If I understand 'the model' correctly, the reasoning would be: Hamilton and Alonso are equally fast, Alonso was way faster than Massa, but Bottas was only slightly faster than Massa. Therefore according to 'the model' Bottas should be much further off Hamilton's pace than he actually is.Of course, these comparisons are made over a period of ten years, with different teams and cars, etcetera. Which is why I don't believe in 'the model'.

No it wasn't. If I understand 'the model' correctly, the reasoning would be: Hamilton and Alonso are equally fast, Alonso was way faster than Massa, but Bottas was only slightly faster than Massa. Therefore according to 'the model' Bottas should be much further off Hamilton's pace than he actually is.Of course, these comparisons are made over a period of ten years, with different teams and cars, etcetera. Which is why I don't believe in 'the model'.

Bottas was much faster than Massa I believe, at least from summer 2015 onwards. I still think it breaks down though as while Bottas seems quite close in the overall score I believe he's a mile away in avg gap.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Comparing A vs B vs C when they've been teammates for long periods of time, or in stable conditions, has demonstrably worked. It's certainly worked better than any other system anyone else can think of.

Once you factor out a drivers debut and retirement seasons then it is pretty accurate the vast majority of the time.

No it wasn't. If I understand 'the model' correctly, the reasoning would be: Hamilton and Alonso are equally fast, Alonso was way faster than Massa, but Bottas was only slightly faster than Massa. Therefore according to 'the model' Bottas should be much further off Hamilton's pace than he actually is.Of course, these comparisons are made over a period of ten years, with different teams and cars, etcetera. Which is why I don't believe in 'the model'.

Bottas is a fair old wack of Hamilton for pace. I would say the model would put Bottas about half way between Hamilton and Massa which is about what we have seen.

Yeah I think the party started early for Hamilton, also Hamilton was actually still faster than Rosberg in most of the races he just couldn't get close enough to pass.

That's not quite true...

After the Japanese Grand Prix - which Lewis won by a dominant margin - the only race you could make a good case for him being the faster driver but unable to pass was Mexico. In Russia Nico qualified on pole and was cruising to victory when his car failed. In the United States Nico was comfortably ahead before his 'gust of wind' - it was completely his fault, but it wasn't that Lewis was right behind and trying to overtake before it, either. And in Brazil and Abu Dhabi Nico was comfortably on pole and never really challenged in the race; Lewis finished about 8 seconds behind in both, which doesn't fit with being faster but not close enough to pass.

I would have to look, I must admit I don't remember all the races, in the USA Rosberg made the mistake because Hamilton was catching him hand over fist.

Hamilton was never able to properly dominate Rosberg in qualifying when they were teammates. Overall Rosberg took 29 pole positions to Hamilton's 35. Which is not exactly convincing. I believe that the average gap across 4 seasons and 78 races was 0.091s in Hamilton's favor.

That sounds about right I have my own method for doing it, the poles are skewed a bit because of bad luck that Hamilton had with reliability problems which never seemed to happen to Rosberg, there is also "cough" Monaco 2014 "cough".

No it wasn't. If I understand 'the model' correctly, the reasoning would be: Hamilton and Alonso are equally fast, Alonso was way faster than Massa, but Bottas was only slightly faster than Massa. Therefore according to 'the model' Bottas should be much further off Hamilton's pace than he actually is.Of course, these comparisons are made over a period of ten years, with different teams and cars, etcetera. Which is why I don't believe in 'the model'.

You have to allow for a margin of error, but it still predicted that Hamilton would have no problem with Bottas, and that's completely true.

As for the relative speed of Bottas and Hamilton, that's hard to say. There have been times when Lewis has a really ridiculous advantage over him (Spa, for example), and others where they're closer. But I wouldn't say Bottas is close to Lewis on pace. The model would say that Massa was about 5-6 tenths off Alonso, and Bottas was 2-3 tenths faster than Massa - therefore Bottas should be about 3 tenths slower than Lewis on average. That's still quite a lot, although I don't know what the season average is.

No it wasn't. If I understand 'the model' correctly, the reasoning would be: Hamilton and Alonso are equally fast, Alonso was way faster than Massa, but Bottas was only slightly faster than Massa. Therefore according to 'the model' Bottas should be much further off Hamilton's pace than he actually is.Of course, these comparisons are made over a period of ten years, with different teams and cars, etcetera. Which is why I don't believe in 'the model'.

No it wasn't. If I understand 'the model' correctly, the reasoning would be: Hamilton and Alonso are equally fast, Alonso was way faster than Massa, but Bottas was only slightly faster than Massa. Therefore according to 'the model' Bottas should be much further off Hamilton's pace than he actually is.Of course, these comparisons are made over a period of ten years, with different teams and cars, etcetera. Which is why I don't believe in 'the model'.

Bottas is a fair old wack of Hamilton for pace. I would say the model would put Bottas about half way between Hamilton and Massa which is about what we have seen.

Not exactly perfect but it would fit a prediction model of who might beat who.

I'm a little surprised that the Alonso > Massa number is that low, and I think it might reflect a weakness of the comparative model in looking only at qualifying. Massa was closer to Alonso in qualifying, but his race pace was almost invariably worse off.

Of course, it would be much more difficult to build a good model that takes races into consideration.

(I also think Bottas' number has been flattered by a few weak performances from Hamilton, and it will by worse by the end of the season)

Hamilton was never able to properly dominate Rosberg in qualifying when they were teammates. Overall Rosberg took 29 pole positions to Hamilton's 35. Which is not exactly convincing. I believe that the average gap across 4 seasons and 78 races was 0.091s in Hamilton's favor.

That sounds about right I have my own method for doing it, the poles are skewed a bit because of bad luck that Hamilton had with reliability problems which never seemed to happen to Rosberg, there is also "cough" Monaco 2014 "cough".

I don't understand this "cough" Monaco 2014 thing... the stewards with all the data cleared Rosberg of any wrongdoing. The same way the stewards with all the data cleared Hamilton of any brake-checking in Baku 2017. So which is it? Are both infractions questionable or neither?

Hamilton was never able to properly dominate Rosberg in qualifying when they were teammates. Overall Rosberg took 29 pole positions to Hamilton's 35. Which is not exactly convincing. I believe that the average gap across 4 seasons and 78 races was 0.091s in Hamilton's favor.

That sounds about right I have my own method for doing it, the poles are skewed a bit because of bad luck that Hamilton had with reliability problems which never seemed to happen to Rosberg, there is also "cough" Monaco 2014 "cough".

I don't understand this "cough" Monaco 2014 thing... the stewards with all the data cleared Rosberg of any wrongdoing. The same way the stewards with all the data cleared Hamilton of any brake-checking in Baku 2017. So which is it? Are both infractions questionable or neither?

I think you have to make a judgement yourself. I don't believe Hamilton brake checked because I don't find the evidence convincing. I do believe Rosberg went off deliberately in Monaco because I think that's where the evidence points.

I certainly wouldn't put the stewards verdict on Hamilton in Baku as any kind of conclusive proof. Neither do I agree with the logic that if I coincidently agree with the stewards once it means I must always agree with them.

Not exactly perfect but it would fit a prediction model of who might beat who.

I'm a little surprised that the Alonso > Massa number is that low, and I think it might reflect a weakness of the comparative model in looking only at qualifying. Massa was closer to Alonso in qualifying, but his race pace was almost invariably worse off.

Of course, it would be much more difficult to build a good model that takes races into consideration.

(I also think Bottas' number has been flattered by a few weak performances from Hamilton, and it will by worse by the end of the season)

It's purely a qualifying model, I believe that was what the talk was about?

Yeah I think the party started early for Hamilton, also Hamilton was actually still faster than Rosberg in most of the races he just couldn't get close enough to pass.

That's not quite true...

After the Japanese Grand Prix - which Lewis won by a dominant margin - the only race you could make a good case for him being the faster driver but unable to pass was Mexico. In Russia Nico qualified on pole and was cruising to victory when his car failed. In the United States Nico was comfortably ahead before his 'gust of wind' - it was completely his fault, but it wasn't that Lewis was right behind and trying to overtake before it, either. And in Brazil and Abu Dhabi Nico was comfortably on pole and never really challenged in the race; Lewis finished about 8 seconds behind in both, which doesn't fit with being faster but not close enough to pass.

I still remember that COTA race in 15'. Actually Lewis was catching Nico at an alarming rate when Nico made his mistake. He was not leading comfortably at all. Granted Nico was somehow much faster than Lewis in the wet during that race, but when it dried up, the race turned in Lewis's favor for sure. And then Nico compounded it by making the mistake to lose the lead, but there is a decent chance Lewis would have passed him anyway.

In the United States Nico was comfortably ahead before his 'gust of wind' - it was completely his fault, but it wasn't that Lewis was right behind and trying to overtake before it, either.

I still remember that COTA race in 15'. Actually Lewis was catching Nico at an alarming rate when Nico made his mistake. He was not leading comfortably at all. Granted Nico was somehow much faster than Lewis in the wet during that race, but when it dried up, the race turned in Lewis's favor for sure. And then Nico compounded it by making the mistake to lose the lead, but there is a decent chance Lewis would have passed him anyway.

I looked back on the race to see if my memory was accurate, and you're right - his lead wasn't comfortable at the time. It had been earlier, before the safety car, but at the point he made the mistake Lewis was only a second or so behind and in the process of setting his fastest lap of the race.

So you could make a case that Lewis was faster in that race. But you could also make a case that he got lucky with the safety car, and wouldn't have been close enough to take advantage without it. I don't see it as a clear case of Lewis being faster than Nico, either way.

Hamilton was never able to properly dominate Rosberg in qualifying when they were teammates. Overall Rosberg took 29 pole positions to Hamilton's 35. Which is not exactly convincing. I believe that the average gap across 4 seasons and 78 races was 0.091s in Hamilton's favor.

That sounds about right I have my own method for doing it, the poles are skewed a bit because of bad luck that Hamilton had with reliability problems which never seemed to happen to Rosberg, there is also "cough" Monaco 2014 "cough".

I don't understand this "cough" Monaco 2014 thing... the stewards with all the data cleared Rosberg of any wrongdoing. The same way the stewards with all the data cleared Hamilton of any brake-checking in Baku 2017. So which is it? Are both infractions questionable or neither?

I think you have to make a judgement yourself. I don't believe Hamilton brake checked because I don't find the evidence convincing. I do believe Rosberg went off deliberately in Monaco because I think that's where the evidence points.

I certainly wouldn't put the stewards verdict on Hamilton in Baku as any kind of conclusive proof. Neither do I agree with the logic that if I coincidently agree with the stewards once it means I must always agree with them.

Well-said mikey. I like your posts, you seem to be one of the more objective posters on here.

I guess my unpopular opinion is that Hamilton did brake-check Vettel in Baku (the on-screen telemetry clearly shows he tapped the brake just after coming out of the turn). As for Monaco, I don't think Rosberg went off deliberately but I think he backed up deliberately knowing it would prolong any yellow.

A maybe unpopular opinion... I strongly feel the stewards base decisions primarily off of championship standings and keeping things close. Championship contenders usually get a pass unless they're running away with the title.

Hamilton was never able to properly dominate Rosberg in qualifying when they were teammates. Overall Rosberg took 29 pole positions to Hamilton's 35. Which is not exactly convincing. I believe that the average gap across 4 seasons and 78 races was 0.091s in Hamilton's favor.

That sounds about right I have my own method for doing it, the poles are skewed a bit because of bad luck that Hamilton had with reliability problems which never seemed to happen to Rosberg, there is also "cough" Monaco 2014 "cough".

I don't understand this "cough" Monaco 2014 thing... the stewards with all the data cleared Rosberg of any wrongdoing. The same way the stewards with all the data cleared Hamilton of any brake-checking in Baku 2017. So which is it? Are both infractions questionable or neither?

I think you have to make a judgement yourself. I don't believe Hamilton brake checked because I don't find the evidence convincing. I do believe Rosberg went off deliberately in Monaco because I think that's where the evidence points.

I certainly wouldn't put the stewards verdict on Hamilton in Baku as any kind of conclusive proof. Neither do I agree with the logic that if I coincidently agree with the stewards once it means I must always agree with them.

Well-said mikey. I like your posts, you seem to be one of the more objective posters on here.

I guess my unpopular opinion is that Hamilton did brake-check Vettel in Baku (the on-screen telemetry clearly shows he tapped the brake just after coming out of the turn). As for Monaco, I don't think Rosberg went off deliberately but I think he backed up deliberately knowing it would prolong any yellow.

A maybe unpopular opinion... I strongly feel the stewards base decisions primarily off of championship standings and keeping things close. Championship contenders usually get a pass unless they're running away with the title.

Thank you

RE the brake test. I think the term brake test is being misused. Hamilton did brake for sure but I brake test would indicate he did that to deliberately hinder the person behind. Even Vettel said it wasn't intentional in the interview post race but you can't brake test someone without intent.

I think if you were trying to lay a charge at Hamilton's door the only one could be erratic driving behind the safety car.

RE your unpopular opinion - We know it's definitely a factor because they put it in there reports. certainly believe we have seen a few penalties given for political reasons. I would put Hamilton at Spa and Fuji 08 in this camp as well as Alonso in Monza 06.

Within his own era, I rated Mansell higher at wheel to wheel combat. I also think that Montoya was better than Senna at overtaking and defending.

There are a few drivers on the current grid who I think have better racecraft than Senna did (but I won't mention them because that will just derail the topic).

I agree and furthermore I believe incidents like his churlish and avoidable going for gap early collisions with Prost which decided two consecutive WDCs disqualify him from being the GOAT. I can concede that one could make a strong case for Senna being the fastest of all time just not the best/greatest in terms of overall racing.

Ricciardo has the greatest racecraft I can remember for many decades stretching back into the 70s. He is just so precise and accurate in his positioning and decisive in his execution. He just overtakes and places his car fully at the apex before the other driver can react and turn in. It sounds simple but very few maybe none can effortlessly and smoothly execute it like he can time after time.

_________________Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”

Last edited by mas on Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Alonso has dropped a little in race craft (think Aus 16 misjudgment) in the last 18 months but is still the driver I would hire if I was starting a new team.

I can see how you may think that, but I think it's just desperation/not caring. I don't think we'd see any mistakes if he had the focus of sitting in a potentially race-winning car each weekend, or knowing a WDC was at stake.

Because if he was, it would throw the whole driver status dynamic out of whack.

Comparing drivers with long-term teammates is the most reliable way we have of seeing where two drivers stand.

For example, Alonso used to be less than a tenth behind Hamilton in qualifying, in 2007.Hamilton to Button, the gap used to be 2 to 3 tenths in qualifying, over 3 years. This would tell us it would be similar to that if Alonso was Button's teammate.

And from 2015 to 2016, that is indeed the gap Alonso had to Button.

Alonso dominated Massa speedwise from 2010 to 2013, so it was obvious the same would happen to Raikkonen. People hyped the partnership, but 2014 made it clear that Alonso dominated Raikkonen the same way he dominated Massa. Maybe even a little more, which is accurate, since Massa used to be a little quicker than Raikkonen in qualifying.

So, if we use this basis, and assume 2014 to be an accurate reflection of Ricciardo vs Vettel, then:

Ricciardo is even better than Alonso, because Alonso dominated Raikkonen in qualifying, while Vettel also has good speed over Raikkonen. So Alonso is only a little better than Vettel, speedwise.

Alonso's gap to Massa is similar to how Schumacher dominated Massa. Hence, Alonso and Schumacher are similar speedwise, with Ricciardo still a healthy chunk faster than both!

I could still have maybe digested it till this point, Ricciardo could well have been the fastest driver ever, it's not preposterous. He certainly did have excellent racecraft, speed, and consistency.(Although one sign that was an anomaly in the domination was rain. Whenever it rained, even in 2014, Vettel easily outpaced Ricciardo in qualifying and seemed faster. Verstappen seems faster than Ricciardo in the rain too.)

But then Verstappen comes along. And he has even greater racecraft, though granted he makes mistakes which I think will iron out with age, and he seems to be even faster than Ricciardo now, in every qualifying. That would make it ludicrious, that Verstappen is ages, ages better than Schumacher and Alonso in raw speed.

And I don't believe we such jumps of talent in F1, ever. The odds of Ricciardo and Verstappen BOTH being the fastest drivers ever by some margin, and ending up in the same era and same team, are really, really improbable.

So, I believe that because of issues in his motivation, not liking the cars, not working well with the tyres which used to be his specialty, and ultimately teammate pressure, Vettel underperformed in 2014.

But of course Ricciardo was better in 2014.

If I had to say what would happen between them when both are in good form, with a gun to my head? Vettel will beat Ricciardo by a smidgen in qualifying. The race would be very close, as Vettel might manage his tyres slightly better, while Ricciardo has the better racecraft. But they'll overall be very evenly matched, not domination like 2014.

It's like Raikkonen and Massa, 2007 and 2008, actually. Raikkonen was just slightly better in 2007. Due to low motivation, then some bad luck in races, losing the points lead, and car not suiting him, he fell a long way behind Massa. If we had only used 2008 as a comparison for Raikkonen and Massa, we'd not get an accurate picture. I believe similar things happened in 2014 between Vettel and Ricciardo. They would be, IMO, very, very similar, with differing strengths.

Phew.

The only thing I believe that is of lasting relevance in the Vettel/Ricciardo partnership was the qualifying record between the two which was 10-9 in Ricciardo's favour. Vettel was just not happy on those tyres on that car and suffered excessive tyre degradation as a result which led to his poorer race showings. This year with more durable tyres you are seeing the peak Vettel as you did in 2009-2013. However Ricciardo is a better racer IMO and slightly faster so he would still edge Vettel I believe in the current Ferrari. I would not put up any argument with anyone who said Ricciardo is at Alonso level and Verstappen is at Hamilton level so the truth probably lies in between the two boundaries of your argument.

The grandrix rankings site which quotes 10-9 gives Seb Bahrain were Dan was faster but took a penalty and AD where Dan was faster but they both took penalties. It also gives Dan USA where Seb took a penalty.

So it's at least 11-7 with no result in USA.

There may well be others I've missed which effects the score though I admit, but those are the ones I recall.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Yeah I think the party started early for Hamilton, also Hamilton was actually still faster than Rosberg in most of the races he just couldn't get close enough to pass.

That's not quite true...

After the Japanese Grand Prix - which Lewis won by a dominant margin - the only race you could make a good case for him being the faster driver but unable to pass was Mexico. In Russia Nico qualified on pole and was cruising to victory when his car failed. In the United States Nico was comfortably ahead before his 'gust of wind' - it was completely his fault, but it wasn't that Lewis was right behind and trying to overtake before it, either. And in Brazil and Abu Dhabi Nico was comfortably on pole and never really challenged in the race; Lewis finished about 8 seconds behind in both, which doesn't fit with being faster but not close enough to pass.

I would have to look, I must admit I don't remember all the races, in the USA Rosberg made the mistake because Hamilton was catching him hand over fist.

Mexio and AD, Nico had Lewis covered but Hamilton said in Brazil he could have gone a lot quicker during that race.